This blog exclusively uncovered how a majority of Members of European Parliament shamelessly voted AGAINST financial transparency surrounding the “Conference on the Future of Europe”. In other words, they were of the opinion that taxpayers should be paying for their – extremely biased – reflection exercise but that it was really not a good idea for those taxpayers to know what would precisely be financed.

Here are some of their excuses:

German Pirate MEP Patrick Breyer (who sits with the green group in the EP):

Unfortunately, the Council didn’t agree to set up a separate budget for the COFOE. As a result, each institution will use its own budget & normal audition rules apply. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense from a budgetary point of view. (Team Patrick)

— Patrick Breyer #JoinMastodon (@echo_pbreyer) May 3, 2021

A bit of a lame excuse, we think. Why vote against a call for “keeping of separate accounts”, something which can make it easier to scrutinise?

One Czech Pirate MEP came to support the German Pirate-in-need:

No such thing happens. All the budgetary control will be done in the framework of the existing institutions and their respective discharges. And it will be done properly, as Pirates enjoy auditing and transparency very much.

— Mikuláš Peksa (@vonpecka) May 4, 2021

So apparently citizens and journalists having to deep-dive and search for grants and tenders on three separate institution websites instead of for example displaying all funding involved on the official platform /about section should be considered as Pirate-style transparency.

Then, at least our Pirate friends were so kind to respond, unlike Renew and GUE, for example, despite the fact that we have asked them multiple times to explain their puzzling voting behaviour. Apparently, EU citizens are not only not good enough to be able to properly scrutinize CoFoE financial undertakings, they are also not even worthy of a simple reply on twitter.

Also, this European Commission top advisor has waded in, providing yet another line of defense:

https://twitter.com/DimLorenzani/status/1390170029958828037

A bit of a weird take.

The fact that a certain amendment was part of a series of separate amendments should not prejudice on how to vote on it.

Also, a “commitment to full transparency” does not mean another committee is needed. The Commission and Parliament could easily be open and publish all communication & engagement related grants under the /about section.

Why don’t they?

Are they trying to hide something?

It seems like nobody is actually happy with the whole “Conference on the Future of Europe”.

Polish MEP Ryszard Legutko pointed out that “it’s the Council, not the Parliament or the Commission that can convene such a conference”, further suggesting not “to deviate from what the Treaties have stipulated”, a rather unpopular thing to do in EU circles:

On this turn, Swedish MEP Charlie Weimers, warned:

“The goal is clear: to transfer more power to the EU. Such a transfer of power, however, lacks any kind of popular support.”

Spanish MEP Jorge Buxade went on to warn about the increasingly evident bias of the ‘Conference on the Future of Europe’, saying:

“If we start the debate by denying participation to other ways of seeing Europe, if this Parliament takes sides, this conference is born already mortally wounded.”

📢 "Si empezamos el debate negando la participación a otras formas de ver Europa, si este Parlamento toma partido, esta conferencia nace ya herida de muerte".

▶️ @Jorgebuxade alerta sobre la cada vez más evidente parcialidad de la 'Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa'. pic.twitter.com/4ouKQHTnz2

— VOX Europa (@VOX_Europa_) April 13, 2021

Also non-eurosceptics have expressed scepticism. For example Andras Baneth, the author of the Ultimate EU Test Book, the best-seller on EU exams for those seeking EU careers and a former Commission official with the Barroso commission) suggests to “just cancel the Future of Europe Conference”:

“No matter how hard they try to make these future-looking discussions citizen-driven, bottom-up, and representative of European society, the voices present will not speak for what the majority of Europeans want.

Why would a random, unrepresentative mix of civil servants, self-appointed opinion leaders, and vocal activists be the ones to decide where the EU should be heading?”

German green MEP Daniel Freund, who leads negotiations on the conference for his group, wasn’t a happy bunny either during the run-up to the conference, complaining in February that: “I am perplexed why the Council would seek to exclude certain political families from the key body of the conference … Restricting the agenda-setting in this way might risk the success of the conference.”

Also the “Brussels bubble” media isn’t too thrilled, as an editorial in Politico reads as follows:

“Macron’s grand idea for a Europe-wide discussion, the sort of thing that EU leaders often resist as a navel-gazing exercise, instead turned into a navel-gazing exercise about a navel-gazing exercise.

The outset of the coronavirus pandemic also removed some urgency from the project, as the prospect of a traveling troupe of Brussels officials, touring across 27 countries for a series of hours-long town hall meetings, suddenly seemed rather preposterous.”

Nobody really seems happy. Perhaps that should lead to a certain conclusion?

During an online meeting to discuss the EU’s “Conference on the Future of Europe”, Portugese EPP MEP Lídia Pereira made the following point:

EPP Group on Twitter: “.@lidiafopereira says the power of Europe to listen to people and to understand them is crucial. #CoFoE has to deliver this and respond” / Twitter

For our younger readers, it is worth recalling that this isn’t actually something the EU has made a habit of in its history.

An overview:

In 1992, A referendum on the EU’s Maastricht Treaty was held in Denmark. It was rejected by 50.7% of voters with a turnout of 83.1%.

Danish voters were asked to vote again, in 1993, (after some opt-outs were granted to the country)

In 2001, the EU’s Treaty of Nice was rejected in a referendum by Irish voters.

They were asked to vote on it again, in 2002, after the Irish government obtained a piece of paper the Seville Declaration on Ireland’s policy of military neutrality from the European Council.

In 2005, voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution.

This was repackaged into the Lisbon Treaty, after some symbols – like the European flag – were removed (never mind that the EU simply continues to use that flag everywhere). Valery Giscard d’Estaing, architect of the EU’s “Constitution” explained at the time that Lisbon was the same as the rejected constitution but that only the format had been changed to avoid referendums.

To avoid a referendum appeared impossible in Ireland, which rejected the Lisbon Treaty, in a 2008 referendum.

Ireland was asked to vote again on the Treaty one year later, in 2009.

Spot a pattern?

Writing for EUObserver, Andras Baneth, a former EU Commission official with the Barroso commission and, as the author of the “Ultimate EU Test Book”, the best-seller on EU exams for those seeking EU careers, a real “EU insider”, raises the question:

“Why would a random, unrepresentative mix of civil servants, self-appointed opinion leaders, and vocal activists be the ones to decide where the EU should be heading?”

Indeed, why would it?

He goes on:

“European voters may decide that they do not want further integration or an ever closer union, so they choose representatives and leaders who wish to leave the EU, or perhaps bring the European Union back to the essence of European integration.

That may lead to the dismantling or scaling back of the dwindling and largely failing EU foreign policy, social, or tax regulations, and focusing on the core ‘four freedoms’ to create a real internal market that benefits everyone.

Is the Conference on the Future of Europe ready to contemplate such radical ideas?”

Asking the question is giving the answer. The author is absolutely right, when he writes: “Just cancel the Future of Europe Conference”.

This conference is clearly not the right path forward for Europe.